NEWS - Injury & Tort Law

[05/31] McLachlan v. New York Life Ins. Co.
In a state law negligence action brought by an individual suffering from kidney failure against an insurer arising from circumstances in which plaintiff submitted blood and urine samples to the insurer prior to the issuance of a policy, and the insurer only notified him of elevated levels of one chemical although the test revealed two, dismissal of the case is affirmed where the insurer neither owed a duty to disclose nor assumed such a duty.

[05/31] Hassan v. City of Minneapolis
In a suit raising federal civil rights and state law claims arising from an incident in which Minneapolis police officers shot and killed an individual walking down the middle of a street carrying a machete and a tire iron after he responded aggressively toward them, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the use of deadly force was not unreasonable and was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment; and 2) plaintiff's state law claims failed, as under Minnesota law defendants had official immunity because plaintiff did not show that their actions were a willful or malicious wrong.

[05/30] Gupta v. Thai Airways Int'l, Ltd.
In an action brought against Thai Airways alleging it erroneously refused to allow plaintiff to board a flight because his U.S. Visa was invalid and that plaintiff suffered professional business losses, denial of airline's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) is reversed where: 1) the appellate court had jurisdiction over the appeal; and 2) a California state court already determined the airline was immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), and such determination had preclusive effect in federal court under the principle of res judicata.

[05/30] Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc.
In suit alleging that hedge fund principals and a publisher of subscriber-based analytic reports on public companies stepped over the line into defamation and other torts with respect to the flurry and timing of reports on an online closeout retailer, denial of anti-SLAPP motions is affirmed as, in this scenario, and at this early stage of discovery, the trial court correctly declined to strike the complaint.

[05/29] MacDermid v. Discover Fin. Servs.
In an action alleging that plaintiff's wife, who suffered from a severe form of bipolar disorder, committed suicide as a consequence of Discover's purported harassing of the couple over $15,000 worth of unpaid credit card purchases, dismissal of the claims on the pleadings and at summary judgment is reversed in part where dismissal of an intentional infliction of emotional distress or "outrageous conduct" claim at the 12(b)(6) stage was error, as plaintiff at least stated a claim for outrageous conduct based on Discover's threats of criminal prosecution for failure to pay a purely civil debt.

[05/25] Aholelei v. Dep't of Pub. Safety
In an action raising state law negligence claims for money damages, which was brought against a state agency and officials by an individual who was beaten by other inmates while incarcerated in a state prison in Hawaii, summary judgment for defendants on sovereign immunity grounds is affirmed where the State defendants did not waive their sovereign immunity by filing the third-party complaint against the attacking inmates because they had timely asserted immunity prior to filing the third-party complaint, and the third-party complaint was a defensive move which was not incompatible with an intent to preserve sovereign immunity.

[05/25] Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama v. Unity Outpatient Surgery Ctr., Inc.
In a case arising out of a scheme allegedly entered into by defendants to fraudulently bill Blue Cross and Blue Shield Plans for unnecessary medical services, orders granting stays to various defendants in the action is vacated and remanded where: 1) lengthy and indefinite stays place a plaintiff effectively out of court, and thus are appealable; 2) the stays in this case were both indefinite and expected to be lengthy, and thus the court had jurisdiction to review them; and 3) vacatur and remand was necessary as the district court did not explain its reasoning in granting the stays.

[05/25] Bowers v. Federation Internationale de l'Automobile
In a suit by auto race fans seeking to recoup their expenses in attending and viewing an auto race where most of the field dropped out beforehand, dismissal for failure to state a claim is affirmed where: 1) even assuming that plaintiffs had a contractual right to a regulation race, the race regulations did not provide for a minimum number of racers; 2) there was no contractual obligation for defendants to use reasonable efforts to avoid cancellations or provide an exciting race; 3) the contracts between defendants were not violated in this case, and dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims as third-party beneficiaries of these contracts was appropriate; 4) plaintiffs' promissory estoppel claim failed because no reasonable promoter or racing fan would have regarded a race's advertising and promotion as a promise upon which someone could reasonably rely; and 5) a negligence claim was barred by Indiana's economic loss doctrine.

[05/25] Grace v. Corbis-Sygma
In case involving dispute between distinguished photographer and his agents over lost photographic images, money judgment for plaintiff after bench trial is vacated as the district court applied an arbitrary methodology in assessing damages and its award was untethered to the facts or to its own correct analysis of the applicable law.

[05/24] Horowitz v. Plantation Gen. Hosp. Ltd. P'ship
In the context of Florida Statutes section 458.320, which outlines the financial responsibility requirements for physicians practicing in Florida, section 458.320 neither imposes a duty on nor creates a cause of action against hospitals for failing to ensure the financial responsibility of their staff-privileged physicians.

[05/24] Florida Bar v. Cocalis
In attorney disciplinary proceedings involving alleged misconduct in handling a personal injury suit, a report recommending that an attorney be diverted to the Florida Bar's Practice and Professionalism Enhancement Program and that he be directed to attend the Bar's Ethics School at his expense is approved as to the facts found below, but diversion is not appropriate as the attorney's conduct violated Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 3-4.3 and the misconduct was more than "minor." Instead a public reprimand by the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar and participation in the Bar's practice and professionalism program on the terms recommended by the referee are found to be the appropriate discipline.

[05/24] Rotolo v. San Jose Sports & Entm't, LLC
In wrongful death action involving teenager who died as a result of a sudden cardiac arrest while participating in an ice hockey game, sustaining of demurrer is affirmed as the duty appellants seek to impose upon respondents -- a duty to notify users of the facility of the existence and location of an automatic external defibrillator at the facility -- is not supported either by the statutes or by the principles developed in California common law.

[05/24] Melican v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.
In suit alleging mishandling of remains by the Willed Body Program of U.C. Irvine, orders sustaining demurrers to breach of contract claim and granting summary judgment for defendant on claims of negligence and negligent misrepresentation are affirmed over claims that: 1) UCI breached its agreement to return decedent's cremains as the cremains plaintiffs received contained metal snaps for clothing the decedent did not wear; 2) UCI owed a legal duty to ensure the cremains returned to the family were not commingled with those of another person; and 3) plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact concerning whether UCI made misrepresentations about the cremains and donations raised by the family for research.

[05/24] O'Dea v. Bunnell
In case where plaintiff-correctional officer was injured while quelling a fight between rival prison gangs, defendants-prison officials did not deprive plaintiff of his liberty interests under the federal due process clause as defendants did not restrain plaintiff's ability to act on his own behalf, even if they orchestrated the fight as plaintiff alleges.

[05/24] Delgado v. Interinsurance Exch. of the Auto. Club of S. Cal.
In suit brought after plaintiff settled underlying personal injury action with insured and insured assigned his rights against insurer to plaintiff, dismissal of complaint for bad faith refusal to defend is reversed as the underlying complaint contained allegations demonstrating a potential for coverage under the insured's policy, and insurer's refusal to provide its insured with a defense was without justification and constituted bad faith as a matter of law.

[05/24] Franklin v. Monadnock Co.
In suit for wrongful termination in violation of public policy where plaintiff alleged he was terminated after reporting a death threat by, and later an assault by, a coworker against him, sustaining of defendants' demurrer is reversed where plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to state a claim for wrongful termination based on the public policies that require employers to provide a safe and secure workplace and encourage employees to report credible threats of violence in the workplace.

[05/24] DePalma v. Rodriguez
In suit or personal injuries allegedly arising from a low-speed motor vehicle accident, jury verdict finding that defendant was negligent but that her negligence was not a substantial factor in causing any harm to plaintiff, is affirmed over claim that plaintiff is entitled to a new trial as the court abused its discretion in allowing defendant's biomechanic expert to testify at trial to opinions beyond those he had testified to at his deposition.

[05/24] Fassberg Constr. Co. v. Housing Auth. of the City of L.A.
In case involving breach of construction contract and submission of thousands of false claims to defendant, a multi-million dollar judgment for defendant on cross-complaint is reversed based on principal holdings that: 1) the evidence does not support a finding of 2,983 false claims and does not establish a sufficient basis for the civil penalty; 2) the evidence does not support a finding that defendant suffered $455,000 in damages for false claims and does not support the treble damages award; 3) the damages awarded for breach of contract are excessive; 4) the award of compensatory damages for misrepresentation is not supported by substantial evidence; and 5) the court properly required an election of remedies by defendant.

[05/24] Incase Inc. v. Timex Corp.
In a suit by a manufacturer of plastic packaging products against a watch and electronics manufacturer involving claims of misappropriation of trade secret, unfair trade practices, breach of contract, and implied contract: 1) judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on the trade secret claim is affirmed where there was no evidence to support plaintiff's argument that it took reasonable steps to preserve the secrecy of the design in question; 2) JMOL on the implied contract claim is affirmed where plaintiff offered no evidence as to the actual value of the services provided; 3) denial of JMOL on the express contract claim is affirmed where there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that a contract existed; 4) there was no evidence of coercion, fraud, abusive litigation, or similar behavior by defendant, thus the judge was correct to deny punitive damages for plaintiff on the unfair trade practices claim; and 5) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial based on unfair surprise.

[05/23] Conroy v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.
In case arising from decedent's decision to donate his body to the medical school at U.C. Irvine, judgment for defendant is affirmed over plaintiff widow's claim that defendant breached contractual and legal duties to her when UCI failed to keep track of her husband's body, failed to contact her before disposing of his remains, and mishandled or otherwise treated his body in a disrespectful manner while using it for purposes other than teaching or scientific research.

Back to Main